Residents, farm groups and commissioners debate Senate Bill 399 and proposed transmission route through Garrett County wildlands

Public comment at a Garrett County Board of Commissioners meeting focused on Senate Bill 399, a measure that would grant exceptions to current protections for designated wildland areas to allow overhead transmission lines.

The issue drew multiple residents and farm leaders who urged the commissioners to oppose the bill or press for more public disclosure. "There was no open or transparent knowledge that you all had at all," said John Bambakis of Brentsville, who asked the board to take a position against the bill. "I think it could cause a lot of problems."

Why this matters: Speakers reported the project could affect roughly 35 miles of corridor, with about 21 miles on public land and substantial mileage crossing farmland and conservation easements. Commenters said land agents are already approaching property owners, postcards have begun circulating and project maps have not been released publicly.

Speakers pressed several specific concerns. Bambakis said he had asked the sponsoring senator for a map and not received one. Steve Stork, a Garrett resident, said the bill would "undermine protocol" by bypassing the usual executive-branch review and said property owners should have more opportunity for public input. Annie (last name not provided) said land agents are asking property owners to sign nondisclosure agreements and described examples of residents being approached and pressured; she urged delay and fuller disclosure.

Farm-bureau perspective: Billy Bishaw, speaking for local farmers, said farmers oppose lines they judge unnecessary but argued the Farm Bureau may support allowing a route through wildlands if that prevents the line from consuming more productive farmland. "If we're going to have a new transmission line, we want it to go in the most efficient path possible, and that may be across the wildlands," Bishaw said, adding that landowners deserve better compensation and contract terms than historical easements have provided.

County response and process: Commissioners said they had met individually with NextEra Energy Transmission representatives but had not taken a formal county position on the bill. Commissioners noted that passage or defeat of the bill would not itself approve or deny a transmission project; the Public Service Commission (PSC) retains permitting authority. County officials said they would work to educate residents and explore preparing language for future PSC or legislative comment.

Other details cited by speakers included NextEra's estimate — shared with commissioners, but not documented in the public packet — that the project could generate $350 million in local economic benefit over 40 years; commissioners said they had asked NextEra for supporting specifics and had not yet received them. Speakers also said state agencies (DNR, MDE) had not yet adopted formal positions.

Ending: The board took no formal position at the meeting. Commissioners said they will notify constituents if they adopt a stance later and will consider coordinated outreach and materials to help property owners evaluate any contact from land agents or developers.